Because you put so darn much new oil in there! Some of the wear metals were gone too. You replaced what? 8 quarts on a 6 quart sump? So you put like ~15% fresh oil in 8 times?

Maybe you just can't read. I SAID TOTAL OIL USED FOR THIS OCI IS 8 quarts. That is only 8 quarts for 25K miles. Another word, 6 quarts at the beginning plus 2 quarts of makeup oils. Let me know if you want me to do a pie chart.

Jeez, dude, calm down. So many angry people on the interwebs.

It's obviously an honest mistake if more than one of us read it the same way. Also, since you're being a bit of a jerk, I'll return the favor. The phrase is, "in other words." What could, "another word" possibly mean?

And when I said "total" that means everything is included does it not?

No - not really. Not to us BITOG folks. Because your full statement was not "total oil installed" but "total oil used". So this becomes a matter of what convention we BITOGers apply to the word "used".

I understand what you're saying in regard to the total oil installed, but I think what you're missing is that most BITOGers understand the term "used" to mean "consumed in addition after initial fill" or as "top off".

Perhaps it's not the way you speak of it, and understand it, but just about all the rest of us use the term "used" in a convention of "added after fill" and not as "part of the total load of initial fill plus sustaining top off".

In the future you could state it this way:Initial quantity of lube installed at OCI fill: X.x qrtsAdditional supplemental lube installed after initial fill to sustain adequate sump lube level: Y.y qrtsTotal lube put into the engine for entire OCI: Z.z qrts

Of course, the rest of us will continue to employ the word "used" to mean top-off.

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic

JHZR2, I got on your soap box because I expected more from you as a mod. Nothing personal, sorry bro.

His status as a moderator has nothing to do with his comments; he was trying to decipher the lube added based upon your implication of "used", and then calculate the percentages. I, too, thought you had "added" (used) 8 qts after initial fill.

Just saying ... from another mod, "bro".

Edited by dnewton3 (01/09/1304:46 AM)

_________________________
Conventionals vs. Synthetics isn't about which is "better"; it's about which lasts longer, while assuring safe operation, in relation to cost. Any product can be over or under utilized. The same applies to filters.Make an informed decision; first consider your operating conditions, next determine your maintenance plan, and then pick your lube and filter. Don't do it the other way around ...

The "total oil used" is the correct term since we are dealing with UOA which by definition is "USED OIL" ANALYSIS. The UOA is not for top-off or makeup oil or originally fill only, it is for all the oil used. The UOA does not differentiate and it is the result of the "total oil used". Any oil added to the engine will become used oil, period.

What BITOG users assumed, misread, misunderstood, etc. are not my problems. I will always used the correct terms as defined by the process.

If you have to ask then you couldn't possibly understand it. Jerk away.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but "another word" is not a real phrase, and is kind of like, "I could care less." The meaning is understood by all, but it's annoyingly incorrect. I keep my criticisms to myself, except in cases where some one is being a true butt head.

See my last post for the correct one, "in other words." "In other words," is used when some one is trying to reiterate or elaborate what they've previously written, in other words.

You expect more from a mod? Your statement was confusing and he made a comment. I don't get it.

Ha. We really do split hairs on everything here,don't we. So the lead is high but to be expected with such a thin oil and how you drive it. How much longer do we think it will last before the bearings have finally had it?

I apologize for jumping in and stoking the fire. I have a bad habit of poking bears; only in jest, mind you, though I'm sure on the interwebs it appears more maliciously troll-like.

Originally Posted By: Clevy

Originally Posted By: gathermewool

Originally Posted By: azsynthetic

Originally Posted By: gathermewool

You expect more from a mod? Your statement was confusing and he made a comment. I don't get it.

and you never will get it so move along if you can't stay on topic. Post something related to this UOA or step off.

Really? So is it a straight grade 20 or how exactly should it be labelled

Oh, I get it, alright.

As requested, I'll make sure my posts stay on-topic from here on out:

Based on the 100C KV, that oil is a 20W, with the 0W-5 stamped on there to make you think it's a super thin racing oil. It's not even a light 20W, either.

Looks like you accidentally posted within the quote -- I do that all the time, by accident! haha.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was a straight 20W, but that the numbers posted indicate it is an XW-20. The oil thickened from a virgin viscosity of 7.4 cSt @ 100C to 8.2 cSt @ 100C, which is consistent with an XW-20, not an XW-5.